Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    February 2, 2012 2:18pm-2:48pm PST

2:18 pm
. supervisor farrell: i would like to amended to approve ms. wu to the planning commission and send it to the full board. supervisor kim: thank you. we have a motion to approve the nomination of cindy wu to the planning commission. we can do that without opposition. prior to us finalizing that motion, i want to thank cindy for your service to the community over the past a number of years. in chinatown and the overall city, it has been a pleasure to watch you and the amazing community outreach and planning work you have done two while we work for the same organization, we did not overlap. i did not work with you in that capacity, but i am very excited about you serving our city at this level. it is an incredible amount of work and dedication, so we appreciate your service in advance. supervisor campos: thank you. let me simply note that i am
2:19 pm
happy to be supportive of the motion, and i was very impressed with ms. wu. the fact that so many people came out and spoke on her behalf illustrates the level of support that she has and respect that she has. i personally was not so sure about the uc berkeley thing. [laughter] but i can deal -- supervisor kim: or mit. [laughter] supervisor campos: but i can deal with that. i do want to think -- thank ms. wu for service. we have heard from many committees, including lgbt about that community being represented on the planning commission. i think that is an important goal, and i think that is sending that can happen with future appointments. but i think that this is a very
2:20 pm
smart appointment and look forward to working with ms. wu. supervisor kim: i agree with supervisor campos. i look forward to seeing a latino/latina and lgbt individuals. we will work with the mayor's office to look for an individual that represents the community. we have this motion. we can do that without opposition. to what. to what to all the members of the committee that came out. -- thank you to all the members who came out. [applause] >> item number four, motion approving/rejecting the president of the board of supervisors, supervisor david chiu's nomination of arcelia hurtado to the board of appeals for the term ending july 1, 2012. supervisor kim: thank you. arcelia hurtado is here today. speak briefly about your background and expertise and interest on serving on the board of appeals. >> good afternoon. thank you for taking the time to
2:21 pm
invite me to introduce myself to you. i will keep my comments brief. my name is arcelia hurtado, and i currently serviced the executive director of equal rights advocates, which is a national women's rights organization based here in san francisco. not to add insult to your -- add uncertainty to your decision, but i also attended uc berkeley, where i got my an undergraduate and law degrees. i have been an attorney for 15 years and have dedicated my entire career to public service here in the city and county of san francisco. i worked for several years for the san francisco public defender's office, where i represented indigent residents of this city and county in criminal proceedings, and also represented people on death row for the state of california based here in san francisco.
2:22 pm
i have volunteered my time as well, serving on various boards, nonprofits, and professional organizations here in san francisco. my interest in serving on the board of appeals stems from a deeply-ingrained belief that everyone is entitled to due process and has the right to be heard and has the right to a fair dispute resolution process. i believe that i can bring a unique perspective, qualifications, and professional experience to benefit the work of the board of appeals. i am truly intrigued by the area of issues that the court of appeals handles. and i think that i would add a unique perspective to that decision making process. of course, always applying law to fax to reach an equitable outcome. i have been a tenant in san francisco. i am also a property owner, as well as a landlord in san francisco. i believe i have the viewpoint
2:23 pm
from multiple perspectives that will enrich the decision making process that the board of appeals. thank you. supervisor kim: thank you. supervisor campos: thank you very much. i want to thank ms. hurtado for being here. i wanted to ask you something similar to what i asked ms. wu before, and that is the community perspective and as matters come before you, how you take that into account. i know that you have a long history of working in different capacities in the community, and i just want to make sure that people who perhaps may not know that can here from you -- can hear from you directly on that. >> absolutely. as i said, i have worked and lived in the city and county of san francisco for close to 20 years now. and i have lived in many different neighborhoods. i currently reside in glen park.
2:24 pm
i have certainly experienced many, many different challenges in its living in a city such as ours. and i think that my dedication to public service stems from the belief that we should all feel that this is our city, that this is a place that belongs to everyone no matter who you are or what your income level is, what york races, with your sexuality is. that is my dedication to public service as an attorney, and i believe that is what i could bring to the board of appeals in terms of hearing different perspectives and understanding the impact that decisions have on different groups of people and just trying to reach a fair outcome based on the facts and the law. and that is my interest in serving for the city and county in this capacity. supervisor campos: thank you. supervisor kim: just a follow-up on that question.
2:25 pm
keeping in mind that your decision making is based on the fact of the law, how do you incorporate neighborhood impact and concerns and also the fabric of the neighborhood into your decision making process when that is what you base your decision on? >> that is a good question. in the legal system, we do try to -- and as a lawyer, i can say that the goal is to place decision making on law, on the law. however, you have to temper that with the ability to hear people's perspectives. as a decision maker, one cannot have a predetermined outcome in mind. one cannot think that they know the best outcome based on the law alone. so i think it enriches the process to hear different perspectives and become educated about the impact that certain decisions may or may not have on different groups of people. i think that that is the value
2:26 pm
of having a human beings as a decision makers, rather than computers you can spit out a predetermined outcome based on the law alone. it is and enriching process. it is the process that we have signed onto. as a democratic society in terms of relying on the courts and administrative bodies such as this to reach their decisions. and really be committed to equitable decision making and due process. supervisor kim: thank you, ms. hurtado. are there any other questions? thank you. we will open it up for public comment. item number four. if you like to speak on item number four, please step up. you have two minutes. >> ♪ good luck to you you are endorsed by president chiu and good luck to you you will make the board of
2:27 pm
appeals brand new and you'll work hard like sue honey bee sue and you'll make it all brand new and good luck with the city blues make it all brand new ♪ supervisor kim: thank you. is there any other public comment at this time? public comment is now closed. quickly, i want to thank ms. hurtado for being here today. i was incredibly embarrassed by your resume. i did go to bolt, so that ways in your favor in this seat alone. actually, i was at a dinner with the mayor last friday, and i think he is actually our first major from there, and we made fun of harvard grads.
2:28 pm
we cannot understand how they got elected into office. supervisor farrell: i will second that. supervisor kim: but thank you so much. i think both your legal background and expertise in working to defend individuals in our committee will give you a blend of experiences that will serve well on the board of appeals. really born -- important to myself to look at the facts in the code in a lot to make good and fair decisions, and taking into account the committee concerns about the impact of the neighborhood. and being able to use the code to be able to articulate some of those needs and concerns as well. are there any other comments? supervisor campos: thank you. we might need to introduce legislation capping the number of berkeley graduates that can serve on this commission but that is for a future day. [laughter] let me say that i do not think that presidents chiu could have
2:29 pm
found a more qualified applicant for this. i have known ms. hurtado for many years to the legal community can be a small community. i think there is a reason why she has an excellent reputation in the legal community. not only as a quality attorney, someone with excellent skills, but as someone who is on top of that word come a very involved in the community. i do want to thank president chiu for this excellent nomination. and the fact that someone who is as qualified also and who comes also from these committees, not only the latino community but the lgbt community, but ultimately because of her stellar quality is a double- qualifications, i think she would make an excellent commissioner. i would like to make a motion to move this forward with positive.
2:30 pm
and to send a committee report. supervisor kim: you have to amend the motion. we have a amend. a motion to approve. we have a motion to approve that president and board of supervisors's nomination of arcelia hurtado to the border appeals and sent as a committee report. supervisor kim: thank you. we have a motion to amend the motion to approve the president of the border supervisors nomination. we can send that with a positive recommendation and we can do that without opposition. thank you and thank you for being here today. can you please call item 5? >> charter amendments to require the board of supervisors to wait 60 days to for adopting an ordinance that may result in a significant net loss of jobs in
2:31 pm
san francisco and to refer the ordinance to the small business commission and planning commission for analysis. supervisor campos: thank you. when we did hear this item, there were a number of amendments that are substantive. supervisor kim: there has been a number of questions and also a lot of discussion around how the board and the mayor's office can work together to support job creation. there are small businesses in the city. i do appreciate the dialogue and recognize the dialogue was initiated because of this charter amendment. there is a focus in many of our offices figuring out what we can do as the board. >> thank you. jason elliott from the mayor's office. the submission by the mayor has
2:32 pm
provoked quite a bit of discussion around how to protect jobs and one of the things we heard most clearly which resonated with the mayor is it is not just about the number but the quality of those jobs. that is insightful -- and insightful thing to focus on and something we will want to look at and consider as we move forward. to get to the point, because of the very good dialogue that started because of this, we have been meeting with partners in the business community and labor to discuss how to accomplish the shared goals. the mayor would like to request this item that is before you today as amended be continued to the call of the chair. we will not be on the june ballot for sure. and we will be in -- to come back for november or not. it is the preference as we remains. we have heard this from a number of supervisors especially from
2:33 pm
the three of you but your colleagues. how do we find a way to involve the voices of workers who stand to lose their jobs and business owners to make reductions in their business? how do we involve their voices in the policy-making process and how do we keep job creation and protection the top priority? the mayor has stated as such and the members of the board. this is good. clearly more work needs to be done to build consensus. the charter amendment is not the way to go ultimately to accomplish this goal. the mayor is committed to having dialogue with the three of you and all of and members of the board and interested stakeholders. he made that decision it would be best in the interest of moving toward the goal and not having a fight to go ahead and ask for you to continue this item to the call of the chair. i am happy to answer questions. i do not know how you want to proceed. >>supervisor kim: i would
2:34 pm
appreciate the mayor making this issue a priority for this office and it is important to agenda is -- and gen gendize its such as this. i think that is important especially on an issue that is as important as this. supervisor avalos: thank you. i want to thank mr. elliott and mayor lee for their comments and decision to have this matter continued. i think it is testament to the kind of relationship this mayor has built with this board and supervisors that he is willing to approach it this way. and the reality is there are differences in opinion we may have on a specific issue. we are committed to working together. the thing about jobs is that i
2:35 pm
think on the issue of jobs, there's a lot more commonality then there are differences. and the key is to focus on that commonality. this mayor has set an example of how people can come together around an issue and the issue of what happened with pension reform is a perfect example. where you had instead of having a unilateral approach to have an approach that brought a number of people together. to the extent you want to talk about jobs, it is better to do it in the way you are proposing. i think those of us who had concerns about this what we recognize the intent simply felt that the charter amendment route was not the route. i think now we have an opportunity to engage in that discussion. i want to thank the mayor for his willingness to do that and i know that those of us who are
2:36 pm
here are committed to being part of that discussion. i see in the audience folks from the business community and labor partners and other communities and i think it is important they are part of the discussion. i want to thank you. supervisor kim: supervisor farrell. supervisor wiener: i want to -- supervisor farrell: i have spoken to both members of the labor committee. this is a wise approach and i think a lot of us would have had trouble supporting this as it was. and reiterate what supervisor campos and supervisor kim said. we're working to gather to make this happen. jobs are a party but not all jobs are created equal. -- jobs are a priority but not
2:37 pm
all jobs are created equal. that is -- i think -- we're working together. supervisor kim: thank you. i look forward to continuing in this conversation. do we have a motion to continue? thank you. i will open up for public comment period on item 5. -- will open up for com -- public comment. on item 5. >> i want to thank you for the diligence to have had as the rules committee. all three of you supervisors on this issue. the rhetoric was pretty high last week at the committee. a week later and want to say that it is ironic -- i want to say that it is ironic that one
2:38 pm
of the largest issues is job creation and good jobs. that was exactly what mayor lee's campaign was built around as he moved forward. the fact we had this was distressing and i appreciate the tactic we are taking right now. i would love to be here standing at the microphone promoting jobs. promoting good jobs and not being against anything here. i think building a partnership where we can move the city forward as the best way to go. we like the way this is moving. thank you very much. supervisor kim: thank you. >> walter paulson. ♪ see you in november of ♪ ♪ see you when your job is new
2:39 pm
♪ ♪ will i see you in the future ♪ ♪ when you have more time and money, too ♪ supervisor kim: thank you. is there public comment on item 5? seeing none, public comment is closed. motion to continue. we have a second and we can do that without opposition. thank you. madam clerk, can you please call items 6 and 7. >> item 6, charter amendment to amend the charter of the city and county by amending sections to replace ranked choice voting with runoff elections. and consolidate odd year elections for city elective offices to a single year and
2:40 pm
increase voter education. supervisor kim: thank you. item 6 is before us. six and seven were before us last week at the special rules committee. there were substantive amendments to item six. both items addressed the same issue. with different outcomes and we wanted to continue those items together. is there any discussion from colleagues? ." -- supervisor farrell: if we have for the discussion we can do that your public comment. everyone knows the issues at this point. supervisor avalos: there was a report from the comptroller's office on the two charter amendments and it might be helpful for us to hear from the comptroller's office. supervisor kim: thank you and i
2:41 pm
apologize we did not call the comptroller's office last week. they did prepare a report. >> thank you. i am peggy stevenson. there are requirements in the -- about the comptroller's office making a simple statement for anything going on the ballot so that is what these letters are about. we -- between last week and this week, we looked at supervisor campos's amendment and in particular, the language that leaves options open for how the city might get a new voting system going forward and does not specify any one approach. that is a fair issue and true. the way we amended the letter was to say that we know the consolidation costs will be there which we estimated at $1 million annually. but for the other part of it, the notion of what might the
2:42 pm
city replaced the dodd-frank choice system with -- ranked choice system with, there are a lot of options. the cost will be significant. in these letters to hundreds $50,000 to the same threshold used for the fiscal impact statements that the board of supervisors budget analyst provides to you. we have changed the language to say that when and if that time comes, the cost will be significant but it is not possible to estimate them at this time. since there would be so many options, there has to be new purchase equipment or placement going on. we probably will do some more specific work with the elections department between now and the november ballot to try and see if we can get more specific on these costs between then and now. at this time i think the statement -- this is how the statement should read. supervisor kim: these items are for the june ballot. >> yes. supervisor kim: if you could go
2:43 pm
over the fiscal impact for an item -- item six. and the fiscal impact of consolidation. >> sure. the simple math here is adding a runoff election for an event where that would be necessary. and in general the variable costs for an election range between $3,000,000.6000000 dollars depending on the size and the number of offices being elected at that election. runoff election has varied. the number of offices it would touch between $2,000,000.3000000 dollars. the notion is if you made that decision you would have to add a runoff election in many elections if not most. there is a $3 million cost there. with ranked-choice voting it is difficult to isolate what if any savings you might experience when that change.
2:44 pm
the elections department did do some work on that so we included a minimal amount of staff time and costs we know were associated with ranked- choice voting that would be saved if it were not present. the statement there gives a simple figure of -- saving you $760,000. adding runoff election costing $3.30 million. the net cost of $2.6 million. that is the simple math. again in the case of the consolidation, what you would experience is not having to run an election for city and attorney and treasurer. a savings of $5 million and over four years, saving $1 million in any one fiscal year.
2:45 pm
supervisor campos: thank you. are there any questions? supervisor avalos: thank you. with respect to items 7 and -- item 7 and the -- i appreciate the acknowledgement of the savings that would be experienced if we were to pass this charter amendment. it is $1 million by consolidating the city treasurer -- city attorney and treasurer elections as well as savings of $4.2 million every four years by eliminating those two, i guess. also the consolidation, not having a runoff. i have a question about your comments regarding costs, future costs. if there is a system that is replaced. the way that this charter
2:46 pm
amendment is drafted, in terms of what is required, the law already requires that you try to provide as many options to voters as possible. that is not any requirement. that cost would have to be incurred in respect of whether or not this charter amendment passes, is that not correct? >> i'm not totally sure what question you're asking. again, the re-look we took last week -- that cost figure we had tried to make some basic assumptions of what might happen if you have to increase the number of ranked-choice voting options. you'd have to add ballot cards. we have unit costs of what would cost to add ballot cost and what it would cost to increase within an election which is printing and translation. that is where the thinking ran.
2:47 pm
on re-looking at at the language is much more open than that. any number of options that might be available to the city with a caveat as of within technology, the notion that you might when we go out to bid for a new election system there are other options other than optical scanner. i hope i am answering your question correctly. the open-ended as of it made it seem prudent to try and let the voters know there would be a significant cost but without a specific mandated solution in the charter amendment itself, we are not able to " that at this time. -- quote that at this time. supervisor avalos: to the extent that there is a call for giving more choices to voters and giving -- which would require buyi


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on